Amazon v. VB Assets: Federal Circuit Dismisses Voice AI Patent Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction
Amazon challenged VB Assets across three patents covering conversational voice interfaces and voice-targeted advertising systems. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals with two related cases and dismissed all for lack of jurisdiction — a procedural resolution reached in just 59 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Federal Circuit ends Amazon’s voice AI appeals on jurisdictional grounds
Filed on 10 January 2025 and closed within 59 days, Case No. 25-1357 pits Amazon.com, Inc. as appellant against VB Assets, LLC as appellee at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At stake are three patents — US7818176B2, US8073681B2, and US9269097B2 — covering respectively a cooperative conversational voice user interface, a voice-based natural language processing and advertising delivery system, and a system for selecting advertisements based on voice input.
The Federal Circuit consolidated Appeal No. 25-1357 with two related appeals (Nos. 2025-1113 and 2025-1142), then dismissed all three for lack of jurisdiction. Critically, the court denied Amazon’s motion to stay proceedings before issuing its dismissal, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. Because the dismissal rests on jurisdictional grounds rather than the merits, the underlying patent validity and infringement questions were not adjudicated at this appellate stage.
Resolution in 59 days is notably swift even for a procedural dismissal, suggesting the jurisdictional defect was apparent from the record early in briefing. The consolidation with two parallel appeals indicates the same or closely related proceedings below, though the precise basis for the jurisdictional finding is not detailed in the public order. What remains unknown from the public record is the status of the underlying district court or PTAB proceedings from which these appeals arose, and whether VB Assets continues to pursue its infringement claims through other procedural avenues.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 59 days
59 days — resolved significantly faster than the typical Federal Circuit appeal timeline
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: what the Federal Circuit’s order means
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no merits reached
A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction means the Federal Circuit found it had no authority to hear the appeal at this procedural stage — not that Amazon’s substantive arguments were wrong. This typically occurs when the order appealed is not a final, appealable decision, or when the appellate posture is premature. The merits of the voice AI patents remain unresolved by this ruling.
Procedural dismissalAmazon’s appeal ends without a merits win or loss
Amazon secured no vindication on the underlying patent validity or non-infringement arguments. The stay motion was also denied before dismissal, meaning Amazon could not pause related proceedings through this route. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to re-raising substantive arguments once a final appealable order exists below — Amazon’s legal position on the patents themselves is preserved.
No merits adjudicationVB Assets retains its patents — for now
VB Assets emerges from this appeal without having its patents invalidated or narrowed at the Federal Circuit level. The jurisdictional dismissal is a procedural win insofar as the patents survive this challenge intact. That said, the dismissal does not foreclose Amazon from mounting a renewed appeal once the underlying proceedings produce a final order, meaning VB Assets’ enforcement campaign is not yet secure.
Patents survive this challengeConversational AI patent risk remains live for voice platform operators
The dismissal leaves VB Assets’ three voice UI and advertising patents in force and litigation-ready. Companies operating conversational AI, voice assistants, or voice-targeted advertising platforms — including Amazon Alexa competitors — should note that the underlying infringement and validity questions were not resolved. A renewed Federal Circuit appeal following a final order below could re-open these issues with the same or strengthened arguments.
Voice AI patent risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — appellant challenging VB Assets’ conversational voice UI and advertising patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VB Assets, LLC | Company | VB Assets, LLC — patent assertion entity holding voice AI and natural language processing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Johnathan Chai | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan G. Tamimi | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ravi Ragavendra Ranganath | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Richard Gregorian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vigen Salmastlian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Greenbaum | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James C. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Otto | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Ronald Smith | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steffen Nathanael Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenbaum Law, LLC | Law Firm | Representing VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC | Law Firm | Representing VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is terse but consequential: all three consolidated appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the stay motion is denied, and costs are split. The phrase ‘lack of jurisdiction’ confirms the court did not engage with the substantive merits of the voice AI infringement claims. The denial of the stay motion before dismissal suggests the court saw no basis to pause related proceedings even temporarily. Because no merits ruling issued, neither party can invoke this order as precedent on patent validity or infringement scope — the underlying proceedings continue unaffected.
US7818176B2, US8073681B2 & US9269097B2 — Conversational Voice UI and Voice Advertising
The three patents at issue span the architecture of conversational voice computing. US7818176B2 covers a cooperative conversational voice user interface — foundational to any voice assistant product. US8073681B2 extends into the delivery of targeted advertisements and natural language processing driven by voice input. US9269097B2 addresses the selection and presentation of advertisements based on voice-based input analysis. Together, these patents describe an integrated stack from voice interaction to monetisation via NLP-driven advertising, representing core intellectual property in the voice AI and smart speaker ecosystem.
Strategically, this patent family sits at the intersection of two high-growth sectors: conversational AI and programmatic voice advertising. Amazon’s Alexa platform, and competing voice assistants from Google, Apple, and others, rely on architectures that could plausibly overlap with claims in these patents. VB Assets, as a patent assertion entity, is positioned to pursue licensing or litigation across the voice technology industry. The outcome of the underlying merits proceedings — when they eventually reach appellate resolution — could establish significant claim scope precedent affecting every major voice platform operator.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7818176B2, US8073681B2 & US9269097B2?
Any organisation developing, deploying, or licensing conversational voice interfaces, voice assistants, or voice-triggered advertising systems should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. VB Assets has demonstrated willingness to litigate against Amazon — the world’s largest voice assistant operator — suggesting the assertion strategy is not limited to smaller targets. Voice advertising startups, smart speaker manufacturers, and NLP platform providers are all potentially within the claims’ reach.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map their conversational AI and voice advertising architectures against the claims of US7818176B2, US8073681B2, and US9269097B2 in minutes. Eureka identifies design-around opportunities, flags claim elements that may read on your implementation, and surfaces the full prosecution history for each patent — giving your IP counsel the context needed to assess exposure before the underlying litigation reaches a final merits ruling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7818176B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit cases involving conversational AI and voice technology patents
Explore Federal Circuit appeals and district court actions involving conversational voice interface, NLP, and voice-based advertising patents similar to the VB Assets portfolio.
What this case signals for the conversational AI and voice technology IP landscape
A swift jurisdictional dismissal preserves VB Assets’ voice AI patents while leaving Amazon’s core challenges unanswered — here is what that means strategically.
Jurisdictional missteps can delay, not derail, major patent challenges
Amazon’s appeal being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — not on the merits — signals that interlocutory or non-final orders are an increasingly scrutinised appellate vulnerability. IP teams pursuing Federal Circuit appeals must rigorously confirm the finality and appealability of the order below before filing, particularly in complex multi-proceeding patent disputes.
VB Assets’ voice AI patents survive, but face continued exposure
The three patents covering conversational voice interfaces and voice-based advertising remain in force and unchallenged on the merits. However, the consolidation of three related appeals suggests Amazon’s challenge is broad and systematic. Once a final order issues below, a renewed Federal Circuit appeal is the likely next step, and the substantive patent questions will resurface.
Amazon.com v VB — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeals 25-1357, 2025-1113, and 2025-1142 for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the court found the orders being appealed were not final or otherwise appealable at that procedural stage. The public order does not specify the exact basis, but this outcome typically arises when an underlying PTAB or district court proceeding has not yet issued a final, appealable decision. No merits ruling on the voice AI patents was issued.
Three patents are at issue: US7818176B2 (cooperative conversational voice user interface), US8073681B2 (targeted advertising delivery and NLP based on voice input), and US9269097B2 (advertisement selection based on voice-based input). Together they cover core conversational voice AI and voice-driven advertising architectures relevant to smart speaker and virtual assistant products.
Consolidation means the Federal Circuit treated Appeals 25-1357, 2025-1113, and 2025-1142 as a single proceeding for administrative and decisional purposes, revising the official caption accordingly. This suggests the three appeals arise from the same or closely related underlying proceedings and raise common legal questions. All three were dismissed together for lack of jurisdiction.
Yes. A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not adjudicate the merits of Amazon’s invalidity or non-infringement arguments. Once the underlying proceedings — whether at the PTAB or district court level — produce a final, appealable order, Amazon may file a new appeal to the Federal Circuit raising the same substantive arguments. Amazon’s legal position on the patents is not foreclosed by this dismissal.
Because the Federal Circuit did not rule on the merits, VB Assets’ three patents remain in force with their existing claim scope. Companies deploying conversational voice interfaces, NLP-driven advertising delivery, or voice-input ad selection systems face ongoing potential exposure. An FTO assessment against US7818176B2, US8073681B2, and US9269097B2 is advisable for any voice platform operator before a future merits ruling sets binding precedent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.